And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

For the record - you can see people running around a fully fuelled rocket a few minutes before launch on many Soyuz launch brodcasts.

EDIT: too late

Also thinking about it, Shenzhou is likely the same - IIRC you can seen the ground crew leave also quite late, so unless the fueling is really quick, the rocket is fully fueled with hypergolics at that time. On the other hand, they don't have any boiloff so they might do remote tanking, check for any leaks and only then let the crew and ground crew aproach the rocket.

I'll pick this one up for Jim given that he has answered this very question many, many times, and people still keep asking the question.

Basically:On Orion and SLS NASA runs the show entirely, down the smallest little details. They are involved in everything and the contractors don't do anything without NASA permission. For example: NASA tells Boeing: go build SLS with a core stage driven by four RS-25s and boosted by two 5-segment ATK SRBs using the design you'll find in your mailbox".

On CCP NASA sets high-level *cough* requirements and basically tells the contractors: "Realize those requirements the way you see fit. Just as long as your solutions meet the requirements".For example: NASA tells Boeing: go do your thing as long as it gets us a service that can transport 4 astronauts to the ISS.NASA than engages in insight and oversight into what the contractors do. But the solutions are conceived, developed, integrated and tested by the contractors and are not the brainchild of NASA.And exactly for this reason does NASA not automatically trust the contractor's solutions. Those solutions need to prove themselves. And that's why - for example - Falcon 9 Block 5 needs to fly at least seven times before it can launch crew. It is also why - for example - the contractors will have to prove that they meet the 1-in-270 LOC requirement.

Naturally, NASA will trust its own design for SLS with just one unmanned test-flight but not trust someone else's design until it has flown seven times.

That's it. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Too bad, because this is the reality for SLS/Orion vs. CCP. And it is not going to change.

Please clarify:

Does this mean that their design doesn't need to meet the 1/270 requirement?

Or because they designed it they are confident that it does indeed meet that requirement?

If SLS/Orion would be flying the same mission profile (crew to ISS) than IMO it would have to meet the 1/270 requirement.However, SLS/Orion is not intended for Crew-to-ISS missions. The LOC/LOM numbers for the SLS/Orion combo are different (and, as far as I know) not generally known to the public.

And yes: because NASA designed its own vehicles and "runs the show" for its own vehicles NASA is confident its own vehicles will meet its own requirements. One clear indicator to this is that ASAP has been reporting on the CCP LOC numbers for years now but hasn't spent a single word, on the LOC numbers for SLS/Orion, in their reporting.

Not meaning to fan the flames of debate between NASA design and commercial design safety, but I think itís important to ask when was the last time NASA designed and (oversaw) built a human rated spacecraft system? Itís a perishable skill thatís perished on many fronts. Look at the TPS for an example. The NASA TPS team actually had to visit museums to study the Apollo capsule and basically reverse engineer the shield. And they then discovered they were rediscovering issues the Apollo engineers encountered 50 years ago. Just because NASA has their hands on the wrench doesnít mean the bolt theyíre tightening is the proper one... (<ó not even sure I get that analogy).

... The NASA TPS team actually had to visit museums to study the Apollo capsule and basically reverse engineer the shield. And they then discovered they were rediscovering issues the Apollo engineers encountered 50 years ago....

Can you please provide links with more details? Sounds like an interesting story.

... The NASA TPS team actually had to visit museums to study the Apollo capsule and basically reverse engineer the shield. And they then discovered they were rediscovering issues the Apollo engineers encountered 50 years ago....

Can you please provide links with more details? Sounds like an interesting story.

Here's a really interesting presentation by Jeremy Vander Kam given at the Ames Research Center in 2015. He's well spoken, intelligent, and the material was really interesting.

{snip}Can you please expand on this? Why are rules not the same? As I understand it, NASA is collaborating heavily with SpaceX on Dragon2 design. How is it different with regards to their vendors for SLS/Orion?

I'll pick this one up for Jim given that he has answered this very question many, many times, and people still keep asking the question.

Basically:On Orion and SLS NASA runs the show entirely, down the smallest little details. They are involved in everything and the contractors don't do anything without NASA permission. For example: NASA tells Boeing: go build SLS with a core stage driven by four RS-25s and boosted by two 5-segment ATK SRBs using the design you'll find in your mailbox".

On CCP NASA sets high-level *cough* requirements and basically tells the contractors: "Realize those requirements the way you see fit. Just as long as your solutions meet the requirements".For example: NASA tells Boeing: go do your thing as long as it gets us a service that can transport 4 astronauts to the ISS.NASA than engages in insight and oversight into what the contractors do. But the solutions are conceived, developed, integrated and tested by the contractors and are not the brainchild of NASA.And exactly for this reason does NASA not automatically trust the contractor's solutions. Those solutions need to prove themselves. And that's why - for example - Falcon 9 Block 5 needs to fly at least seven times before it can launch crew. It is also why - for example - the contractors will have to prove that they meet the 1-in-270 LOC requirement.

Naturally, NASA will trust its own design for SLS with just one unmanned test-flight but not trust someone else's design until it has flown seven times.

That's it. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Too bad, because this is the reality for SLS/Orion vs. CCP. And it is not going to change.

When dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.

A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.

The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.

When dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.

A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.

The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.

Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?

Answer: Challenger and Columbia.

Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.

When dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.

A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.

The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.

Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?

Answer: Challenger and Columbia.

Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.

When dealing with quality and safety standards it is irrelevant whether you do something yourself or someone else does it. The same quality standard applies. The SLS's main requirements document should specify its LOC and LOM requirements.

A difference between the SLS and Orion's LOC to the ISS and CCDev LOC needs explaining and authorising. Possibly by Congress.

The SLS having multiple mission types means that instead of having a single LOC it requirements should contain a table of LOCs and LOMs.

Let me put it this way: when was the last time NASA had to explain something to itself?

Answer: Challenger and Columbia.

Additionally: notice the bolded statement above? Well, NASA doesn't agree with it, because they don't require their own vehicle (SLS) to launch unmanned seven times before they put a crewed vehicle on top of it.It is plain and simple: SLS is a NASA vehicle. As such they DO NOT apply the same standards to SLS, that they apply to a vehicle built by someone else.

Either SLS will get cancelled or NASA will get caught.

Let's just hope it is the former because the only way NASA will get caught is when a catastrophic failure of SLS happens.